Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 06/13/2019Ralph Shields, Chair Shelley LaMastra, Vice Chair Bob Long John McCoy Taylor Meyer Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Ross Cunniff Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: City Council Chambers 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING JUNE 13, 2019 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL Vice Chair LaMastra called the meeting to order. Boardmembers Shields and McCoy were absent. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Long made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to approve the May 2019 meeting minutes. Yeas: Meyer, Stockover, Long and LaMastra. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) None. • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA190009 - APPROVED Address: 525 Smith Street Owner: Daniel & Lisa Regan Petitioner: A. Wesley Gunter Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(4) Project Description: This variance request is to build an addition to the primary home. A portion encroaches approximately 2 feet in the required 5-foot side-yard setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the proposal. He stated the proposed new rear addition would encroach into the side setback and noted the existing house already encroaches into that setback. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 June 13, 2019 Applicant Presentation: Adam Wesley Gunter stated the setbacks cannot be met due to the configuration of the house and 2002 addition. He also stated the original cobblestone foundation would be damaged with a complying plan and noted the Landmark Preservation Commission has approved his plan to this point. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Stockover stated this seems straightforward and nominal and inconsequential. Chair LaMastra and Meyer agreed. Long made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to approve Appeal ZBA190009 for the following reasons: the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the width of the encroachment is approximately 6 feet, the proposal encroachment is for the first story element with no windows and portions of the existing structure encroaches further into the same setback; therefore the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Vote: Yeas: Meyer, Stockover, Long and LaMastra. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 2. APPEAL ZBA190018 – POSTPONED TO JULY 3. APPEAL ZBA190019 - APPROVED Address: 2613 Cedarwood Drive Owner: Tom Davis Petitioner: Brad Martin Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(1) Project Description: This is a variance request for a 240-square foot sunroom addition. The existing house has 1,803 square feet of floor area. The maximum floor area allowed is 1,764 square feet. With the addition, the total floor area is 2,043 square feet. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the proposal noting this zone district has a requirement that the lot size be a minimum of 6,000 square feet and that the lot size be at least three times the floor area on the property. This lot is already smaller than the minimum 6,000 square feet at 5,292 square feet. Beals stated the proposed sunroom addition would be to the rear of the house and would encompass the existing patio. The sunroom would be mostly glass but would have some solid elements. Vice Chair LaMastra asked if this subdivision was built in the RL zone. Beals replied it was built in the predecessor zone which had a similar floor area to lot size requirement. Vice Chair LaMastra asked if there are other similar lots in the area. Beals replied he could not answer that definitively. Applicant Presentation: Brad Martin, Champion Windows, stated the proposed sunroom would add 240 square feet. He read a letter from Zoning staff indicating the home is now considered a legal, non-conforming structure as the zone district changed from when the property was built. He noted the sunroom will not be heated or air conditioned and stated the sunroom will sit on the existing patio pad. Tom Davis, owner, stated no adjacent homeowners are opposed to the project and it will allow him to use the space during the summer when the existing patio is too hot. Stockover asked if this structure will have a rooftop deck. Mr. Martin replied in the affirmative but noted only the first story will be enclosed. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 June 13, 2019 Vice Chair LaMastra asked which variance justification the applicant is seeking. Mr. Davis replied his neighbors find the proposal to be nominal and inconsequential. Vice Chair LaMastra asked why Mr. Davis is installing a deck if the existing patio is too hot. Mr. Davis replied the plan is to install a sliding glass door from the adjacent bedroom to access the open patio. Long asked why the structure needs to be enclosed. Mr. Davis replied the heat is overwhelming. Meyer asked Mr. Davis if he was aware his house is already over the maximum allowable square footage. Mr. Davis replied in the negative. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Stockover noted no complaints have been heard but expressed some concern about the deck and railing. He discussed the staff recommendation of denial but stated he would be in support of the request. Long expressed concern the request does not meet the criteria in terms of finding a valid hardship or being minimal and inconsequential. Stockover stated the proposal is nominal and inconsequential to the block. Vice Chair LaMastra noted not only is the home over the allowable floor area, but the lot is under the minimum lot size. Stockover asked Mr. Davis if he was the original owner. Mr. Davis replied in the affirmative and stated it was a spec home. He stated he was never made aware of the size issues. Vice Chair LaMastra stated case for both hardship and nominal and inconsequential could be made. Stockover made a motion, seconded by Meyer, to approve Appeal ZBA190019 for the following reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good, the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2, and with the findings that, if the lot were at the minimum size of 6,000 square feet required for this neighborhood that has been changed with updated Codes and replats, the floor area of the home with the addition would only be 43 square feet over the allowed square footage, which is nominal and inconsequential. Vote: Yeas: Stockover, Long, Meyer and LaMastra. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 4. APPEAL ZBA190020 - APPROVED Address: 432 Park Street Petitioner/Owner: James Swanson & Bonnie Brummer Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 3.8.19(A)(5); 4.8(E)(5) Project Description: This is a request for a stairwell to encroach 4'¾" into the required 15-foot street side setback and the building to extend 1'11" over the max building height of 25'4". Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the proposal. He noted there is no public sidewalk, just a parkway from the property line to the curb. Vice Chair LaMastra asked if the garage portion is already in the side yard setback. Beals replied he believes so and stated there is an additional variance application for this property on next month's agenda. Applicant Presentation: James Swanson replied the existing home was purchased prior to the Eastside Westside Neighborhood Guidelines being implemented and noted the lot size makes meeting setbacks difficult without building an entirely new structure. He stated the additional variance request mentioned is for a curb cut for the garage access which was approved by the Engineering Department. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 June 13, 2019 Audience Participation: Amy Martin stated she lives directly north of the subject property and expressed support for the project. James Martin stated this would be a good addition to the neighborhood. Beals read two letters of support from Chad and Cindy Morris at 400 Park Street and Madeline Burke at 405 Park Street. Board Discussion: Long noted the setback is effectively 27 feet; therefore, this is inconsequential. Vice Chair LaMastra agreed and stated the building height is also nominal. Long made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair LaMastra, to approve Appeal ZBA190020 for the following reasons: the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the encroachment into the setback is less than existing encroachment, the encroachment is for a staircase that is below grade and semi-transparent handrail that is less than four feet above grade, the increased building height is for a pitched roof that is not the full length of the building and the visual appearance of the building is two stories; therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Vote: Yeas: Stockover, Long, Meyer and LaMastra. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 5. APPEAL ZBA190021 - APPROVED Address: 313 Edwards Street Owner: Claire Pederson Petitioner: Heidi Shuff Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(4) Project Description: This is a request to encroach 2 feet into the required 5-foot side-yard setback. Existing addition to home was built 2 feet into the setback; this request is rebuilding the roof with a steeper pitch and increasing the height of the existing wall by 8.5 inches. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the proposal to place a new roof on the building increasing the building height and the wall height of an already encroaching wall. Applicant Presentation: Mark Villarreal stated the existing rafters are two by fours which will be replaced with two by tens, therefore increasing the height. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Long stated he would support the appeal as nominal and inconsequential. Long made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to approve Appeal ZBA190021 for the following reasons: the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the existing wall already encroaches into the setback, the length of the wall does not increase, the eight inches of increase in wall height is a one-story element, and the proposal does not increase the floor area of the building; therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Vote: Yeas: Stockover, Long, Meyer and LaMastra. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 June 13, 2019 6. APPEAL ZBA190018 - APPROVED Address: 1022 West Mountain Avenue Petitioner/Owner: Jeffrey S. Pace Zoning District: L-M-N Code Section: 3.5.2(E)(3); 3.8.11(C)(3) Project Description: This is a variance request to allow a 60-foot section of fence at a side yard to be built 8 feet tall. The allowed maximum height of the fence is 6 feet. In July of 2018, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved a similar request for this property. Staff Presentation: (**Secretary's Note: Meyer recused himself from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest.) Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the proposal. He noted the previous approval was only for a 50-foot section and had the condition the fence does not increase above 8 feet from the existing grade if a retaining wall were required. Applicant Presentation: Jeff Pace stated the proposed fence would be made of the same materials as the existing fence but will be an open lattice. He noted his property was raised due to flood zone requirements resulting in the first floor being the almost the same height as the top of the 6-foot fence; therefore, the intended privacy is defeated. Mr. Pace stated the change is nominal and inconsequential. He discussed the legal issue relating to the retaining wall, which he does not want, and stated he would meet the condition of the fence being only 8 feet from the existing grade. Audience Participation: Darryl Austin, neighbor, stated he does not have an issue with the 60-foot aspect; however, he has recently received the drainage certificate for his property and has filed suit against Mr. Pace in small claims court to deal with the retention wall aspect. Jonathan Chenard, 1014 West Mountain, supported the variance request. Vice Chair LaMastra asked Mr. Austin to detail his concerns. Mr. Austin stated he has started having water issues on his property, which have recently resulted in damage, since the redevelopment of Mr. Pace's lot. He stated he is fine with the fence not being higher than 8 feet. Vice Chair LaMastra asked how this was approved as properties are not to shed water onto neighboring properties. Long replied not all design works. Mr. Pace stated the drainage does work, is carefully engineered, and certified by the City. He argued Mr. Austin's damage was due to his un-guttered roof and foundation surrounding below ground windows. Vice Chair LaMastra noted this is in the middle of the property and is not next to the street frontage. She stated it is nominal and inconsequential and there is a hardship with the grade being forced up. Stockover noted the drainage and legal issues have nothing to do with this hearing and decision. Board Discussion: Long made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to approve Appeal ZBA190022 for the following reasons: the request is not detrimental to the public good, the lattice is not opaque and still provides some transparency, the lattice is constructed of similar materials to the fence, the lattice is for 60 feet of the 445 foot length of the property line, and the view of the increased fence height from the public right-of-way is minimal; therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Vote: Yeas: Stockover, Long and LaMastra. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED.